IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR CRA No. 8133 of 2025 (KHEMRAJ GUPTA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )

Dated : 04-12-2025 Shri Abhay Gupta - Advocate for appellant.

Shri Sachindra Raghuwanshi - Panel Lawyer for State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal, being arguable, is admitted for hearing.

Also heard on I.A. No.24580 of 2025, first application under Section

389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

2. This Criminal Appeal assails the judgment dated 26.07.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No.139 of 2018 by the learned Nineteenth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.), whereby present appellant has been convicted under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6(1) of the M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam and sentenced to undergo five years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- and five years R.I. and fine of Rs.50,000/- respectively with default stipulations.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is not the Director of Astha Build Tech Limited nor his signature is on the document Ex.P/14 to P/33 (Q21 to Q38). Though the finger print expert Smt. Priyanka Shrivastava (PW-9) has deposed in paragraph-5 that the standard signature as S7 to S12 and natural signature N5 to N9 are said to have been the signature of Khemraj Gupta. Khemraj Gupta has signed the document Q21 to Q38, but in paragraph-8 of her cross-examination she categorically admitted that she has not compared the signature with full signature of Khemraj Gupta. No comparison was made with the full signature as well as the signature on the pan card. It is also admitted by the Investigating Officer that he has not collected any document which shows that the present appellant was the Director of Astha Build Tech Limited nor any other information has been collected in that regard. He categorically admitted in paragraph-32 that Ex.P/14 to P/33 (Q21 to Q38) does not bear the signature of Khemraj Gupta. He also admitted that the standard signature was not compared with the full signature of Khemraj Gupta. In these circumstances, the finding of conviction of the present appellant is erroneous. It is further submitted that keeping in view the contradictions, omissions and variations in the statement of the witnesses, the present appellant has a good case on merits. He is ready to comply with the condition as may be imposed by the Court. It is also submitted that after admission, there is no likelihood of final hearing of this appeal in near future. Therefore, it is prayed that the remaining jail sentence of appellant be suspended and he be released on bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, this Court is inclined to suspend the remaining jail sentence of the appellant and released him on bail. Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, I.A. No.24580 of 2025 is hereby allowed. Subject to depositing of fine amount, if not already deposited, and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, the remaining jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail. The present appellant is further directed to mark his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 23.03.2026 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

List this case for final hearing in due course.

Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)

JUDGE THK